AZ Nancy Guthrie, 84, (mother of TODAY Show host Savannah Guthrie) missing - last seen in the Catalina foothills area on Jan 31, 2026

[CrimeDawg123]

RSBM
If SIL suddenly came into a lot of money, and used it to pay off a lot of secret dodgy debt, I doubt if anyone would know.

But if someone came into, I don't know say $6M, are they really just going to pay off the dodgy debt? No new car or anything?

 

[threeflight]

Excellent post. Reasons why I'm skeptical of him - doing this for money makes no sense. Without a body there could not be a payout for a long time, longer than if they just waited for her to pass (sorry to be indelicate).

So that leads me to an argument of some sort - if it was spur of the moment and he removed the body, there would likely be traces of it somewhere and cell phone evidence, and the FBI would surely have recovered that by now. I think we'd see him in custody or at least being held for lengthy interviews.

I can't see him setting up the ransom. FBI is probably all over his tech and would discover it. Plus he'd have no way to explain his sudden cash infusion were it to be successful.

Totally agree I think he either was talking to her earlier that night during dinner or while he was driving her home, and he stewed on it after and then went back to her place later on to confront her about $$$. I doubt he had had plans to murder/abduct her, but either alcohol and/or emotions took over and something bad happened. In fact I think I remember it was said he went to the bar for a while after he dropped her off. I mean.....that sounds extremely red flaggy to me.

The same thing happened with Anthony Aiello. It really is an interesting watch on youtube. You would never think this 90 year old guy could kill his 67 year old daughter in law, but he went over to her house (with pizza) and he got irate that she wouldn't give him financial help and killed her. He was the last person to see her (he even admitted to that just like NGs son in law) but it wasn't until his timeline of when he was at her house and the Ring camera video didn't line up that he got caught. This situation with NG totally reminds me of that.

 

[Nikynoo]

I was just re-reading the DC complaint. It's a short document. Everyone should read it to have first-hand information rather than just relying on recaps from others.

I don't find this to be compelling evidence that DC was working with AG or TC. I think it's just clumsy wording of a demand for bitcoin. This does not look like a smoking gun to me at all, IMO.

Also, I notice that it says, "On the morning of February 1, 2026, a friend of N.G.'s contacted the victim's family and notified them that N.G. had not attended church that morning." Criminal complaints are of course not perfect documents, but I'd be somewhat surprised if this detail was included without them being fairly sure it's true as of the time of writing (Thursday, Feb 5). I continue to be somewhat skeptical of the church member phone call, but this is evidence in favor of it having happened, and being left off of the sheriff's timeline for some other reason. MOO.

Thank you for this. I would say that this document (authored by the FBI) confirms the church call.

 

[CrimeDawg123]

Totally agree I think he either was talking to her earlier that night during dinner or while he was driving her home, and he stewed on it after and then went back to her place later on to confront her about $$$. I doubt he had had plans to murder/abduct her, but either alcohol and/or emotions took over and something bad happened. In fact I think I remember it was said he went to the bar for a while after he dropped her off. I mean.....that sounds extremely red flaggy to me.

The same thing happened with Anthony Aiello. It really is an interesting watch on youtube. You would never think this 90 year old guy could kill his 67 year old daughter in law, but he went over to her house (with pizza) and he got irate that she wouldn't give him financial help and killed her. He was the last person to see her (he even admitted to that just like NGs son in law) but it wasn't until his timeline of when he was at her house and the Ring camera video didn't line up that he got caught. This situation with NG totally reminds me of that.

Yes it would be very interesting to know exactly what he told his wife. She would be the one to have to provide an alibi. How quickly could he have disposed of the body without his wife getting suspicious. And how could he do that without leaving evidence.

I don't think his wife had anything to do with it because (pure conjecture) her demeanor doesn't seem like she's one that could keep that to herself without cracking.

Thanks for the information about Aiello.

 

[Napoli]

I dont, but if my job

Yes which be easy in a high profile abduction case probably with a lady known to need medicine.

In
Arizona
, the timeline for declaring a missing person legally dead depends on the evidence available:

• Five-Year Absence: Generally, a person who has been missing and not heard from for a continuous period of five years is legally presumed dead. This requires that their absence cannot be satisfactorily explained after a diligent search.
• Less Than Five Years: A person can be declared dead sooner if there is clear and convincing evidence (including circumstantial evidence) that they have died. This often applies if the person went missing under specific life-threatening circumstances or "peril," such as a plane crash or natural disaster.
• Estate Restoration: If a person is declared dead after a five-year absence but later turns out to be alive, Arizona law provides for the restoration of their estate and any profits earned from it during their absence. AI definition

 

[threeflight]

Yes it would be very interesting to know exactly what he told his wife. She would be the one to have to provide an alibi. How quickly could he have disposed of the body without his wife getting suspicious. And how could he do that without leaving evidence.

I don't think his wife had anything to do with it because (pure conjecture) her demeanor doesn't seem like she's one that could keep that to herself without cracking.

Thanks for the information about Aiello.

Yep. I think his wife may hold the key to the entire thing. Would love to know what she is saying as to where he was that night.

BTW I love your avatar. Beagles are my all time favorite dogs. Cutie.

 

[submarine7]

Either AG is lying about somebody calling from church, which could be verified in a matter of minutes, or there's something fishy about the church caller.

Purportedly, they called at 11 which would mean NG was expected at the earlier service. The second morning service started at 11 I think. Why would somebody from church lie?

 

[cady]

Seems to me that if a family member were in dire financial straits, SG would not hesitate to help them out. JMO

 

[Chainspell]

Either AG is lying about somebody calling from church, which could be verified in a matter of minutes, or there's something fishy about the church caller.

Purportedly, they called at 11 which would mean NG was expected at the earlier service. The second morning service started at 11 I think. Why would somebody from church lie?

Maybe its not so much the church caller, but the amount of time it took for AG and TC to get over to Nancy's from wherever they were that morning, or what they were doing in the morning doesn't quite line up in the timeline that's causing issues. So the call itself is fine, the amount of time AG and TC were at Nancy's house before they called 911 is fine, but what happened between the church call and getting to Nancy's house still needs some smoothing out.

 

[Taffy550]

IMO, that was not a septic tank LE was looking into, it was a rain water drain. This area gets flash flooding.

 

[Nikynoo]

Since LE took this notification from a church member off their timeline, I believe LE determined this didn't happen. MO

But it’s in the criminal complaint by the hoaxer. https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/media/1426976/dl?inline

 

[flakesofsnow]

Can we trust that anybody involved in this case in any aspect is being honest? Cases get solved when LE tells the truth and asks for the public’s help. This whole case is like one big AI creation.

 

[Napoli]

Can you prove this?

I said it was JMO. Rather aggressive of you to ask me to prove my opinion. If I could PROVE this, i would be collecting the reward money.

 

[BigCityAccountant1]

Did any of you sleuthers ever hold back a comment on a thread because you thought maybe the perp or in this case kidnappers may be reading these posts?

Well I have an idea and I'm not going to post it because I think it's likely the kidnappers are reading this. I don't mean to open up a can of worms, I just care about NG and the family and don't want to possibly help the criminals.

Just throwing that out there.

I've had this feeling since yesterday.

 

[VicBlazey]

This case has had me puzzled and I’ve only read but not posted to this point but I just woke up with an idea. What if the second video by the family was not in response to any letter at all? “We got your message”. Maybe message doesn’t refer to either of the supposed two letters from the “kidnappers”. But rather “message” refers to the heinous act of murdering their innocent loved one? I.e- someone “sending a message”. I have no clue what that message was or why it would have been sent and won’t speculate. But the family is stating to whatever person/entity out there like “hey we got your message, message understood” (paraphrasing). But this theory may better explain why LE went back to the homes of NG and AG and basically re-canvased, re-investigated each location (as potential homicide scenes as opposed to NG’s house as the site of a kidnapping as previously thought). It may also explain the shift in tone and wording between the two family videos. By the time the second video came out, family and LE no longer believing any of the ransom notes were legitimate and instead the case was more likely a murder than a kidnapping.

Just jumping onto this as it made me think- what if the first part of the message wasn't for the perp(s), but for NG herself. Perhaps the second note contained some sort of message from her to prove life, and the family are acknowledging that by saying 'we received your message and we understand'?

 

[Poedelini]

I never would have imagine it would take this long. Thinking of the Guthrie family today and dear Nancy.

 

[Tiger Stripes]

here is the exact segment on youtube

It must have been paid already, it must! Surely!

Or perhaps  partially paid?

 

[Cassie P]

At the time of the last note, the exchange rate of $6mil was exactly 86 bitcoin. Those of us working or who have worked in the restaurant industry in know what 86’d means . Is it a coincidence or a message?

Normally I would think this is a bit of a stretch and coincidence. However given the esoteric and far fetched symbolism being used in the family videos, anything is possible along these lines. What do you think the message might be in this context?

 

[Napoli]

Sure seems like the abductor is real, and the ransom demand has enough info to convince that it's real. So, isn't it time to profile? (Assuming SIL is not involved.)

Here's my take:
Male
Educated
Smart
Ages 25-55
Single
Bitcoin very experienced. Must know how to delink from his identity.
Financial advisor? Corporate?
Has spent time researching property, NG, habits
Is familiar with the property w/o anyone knowing
Familiar with Tucson
Did not take NG far from Tucson, maybe Phoenix
Would he leave immediately after gaining ransom? Big mistake on his part. Mistake maybe to stay too.

ok! While profiling to me seems like being a mind reader, I will jump in. WILLING TO USE FORCE. COMFORTABLE WORKING IN THE NIGHTTIME. MOTIVATED BY CONTROL, ROBBERY OR REMOVAL OF A WITNESS. FAMILIAR WITH THE ENVIRONMENT AND VICTIM'S ROUTINES. DID NOT ACT ALONE.

 

[shonyakay]

It seems that several of us believed that the FBI stated that what the family did with the ransom note was up to them. Leading us to believe the FBI may have believed it wasn't legit.

What the FBI actually stated at the February 5th press conference is, "Any action taken on the ransom is ultimately decided by the family."

Notice he didn't say ransom "note" - he said ransom. That seems to be referring to whether the family chooses to pay the ransom or not.

This has got to be hell for the family. Since the author of the note(s) have not been identified the family would be taking a tremendous risk on paying while possibly still never seeing their mother again (alive or dead) regardless. This is why they wanted "proof of life." I can't imagine that predicament.

Timestamp: 13:45